Back
1992 Supreme(MP) 74
1992 JU 331
(SUPREME COURT)
M.H. Kania, C.J.I., Dr. T.K. Thommen and Dr. A.S. Anand, JJ.
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi and others
S.L.P. No. 8788 of 1989 and 2724 of 1992; against 1989 JLJ 501; Decided on 13.2.1992.
D.D. Thakur with S.K. Gambhir for petitioner; Shanti Bhushan and Y.N. Bhachawat for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4 (1) (2) and 6 (1) -- issuance of notification -- is mandatory -- serious lapse on the part of acquiring authority would vitiate entire acquisition proceedings.
It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued under section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of notification under section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under section 4 of the land. Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the Courts. The object of issuing a notification under section 4 of the Act is two-fold. First, it is a public announcement by the Government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for the "public purpose" mentioned therein and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be, to do all such acts as are mentioned in section 4 (2) of the Act. 1989 JU 501 affirmed. [Para 7
(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4 (1), 6 (1) and 17 (1) -- no particulars of land sought to be acquired given with clarity -- mentioning of public purpose also vague -- notification rightly quashed.
The description of the land in the notification issued under sections 4 (1) and 17 (1), in our opinion, is very cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given, even the precise "locality" has not been indicated. Mere mention of Mandsaur, which is spread over an area of 25 sq. kms. and is divided into various municipal wards, against the "locality" is wholly insufficient description and the respondent or anyone else could not have come to know from that description whether 2.298 hectares of land which was required for acquisition included the land belonging to him or not. The non-disclosure of the "locality" with precision, invalidates the notification and renders the publication of notice a meaningless formality. [Para 12
We find that even that "public purpose" which has been mentioned in the schedule to the notification as "residential" is hopelessly vague and conveys no idea about the purpose of acquisition rendering the notification as invalid in law. There is no indication as to what type of residential accommodation was proposed or for whom or any other details. The State cannot acquire the land of a citizen for building some residence for another, unless the same is in "public interest" or for the benefit of the "public" or an identifiable section thereof. 1970 (3) SCR 278 and 1973 (1) SCR 973 relied on. 1989 JLJ 501 affirmed. [Para 14
¼1½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 4¼1½ ¼2½ rFkk 6¼1½ && vf/klwpuk tkjh fd;k tkuk && vkKkid gS && vtZu izkf/kdkjh dh vksj ls xaHkhj xyrh laiw.kZ vtZu dk;Zokfg;ksa dks nwf"kr dj nsxhA
;g lqLFkfir fof/k gS fd vtZu dh izfØ;k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk ds lkFk izkjaHk gksuk pkfg,] tks fd vkKkid gS] rFkk vR;ko‘;drk ds ekeyksa esa Hkh] /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk ds v/khu fdUgha Hkh vfrfjDr ‘kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx dh iwoZorhZ ‘krZ gSA Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ fdlh Hkh vf/klwpuk dk] ftldk mÌs‘; fdlh O;fDr dks mldh laifÙk ls oafpr djuk gS] vfrfu;e fu"Bk ls vFkZ ykxuk gksrk gS rFkk vtZu izkf/kdkjh djs vksj dks dksbZ Hkh xaHkhj xyrh dk;Zokfg;ksa dks nwf"kr dj nsxk] U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mldh mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrhA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klpwuk tkjh fd, tkus dk mÌs‘; nksgjk gSA izFke] og bl izHkko dh ljdkj }kjk lkoZtfud ?kks"k.kk rFkk dysDVj }kjk yksd lwpuk gS fd og Hkwfe] tSlk fd mlesa fofufnZ"V gS] ljdkj dks mlesa of.kZr **yksd iz;kstu** ds fy, vko‘;d gS vFkok vko‘;d gksuk laHkkO; gS( rFkk f}rh;r vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ¼2½ es ;Fkk of.kZr lHkh dk;Z djus ds fy, og foHkkxh; vf/kdkfj;ksa dks vFkok LFkkuh; izkf/kdkjh ds vf/kdkfj;ks dks] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] izkf/k—r djrh gSA 1989 ts ,y ts 501 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼2½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 4¼1½ 6¼1½ rFkk 17 ¼1½ && vftZr djuk pkgh xbZ Hkwfe dh fof‘kf"V;k¡ Li"Vrk ls ugha nh xbZ && yksd iz;kstu dk o.kZu Hkh vLi"V && vf/klwpuk,¡ Bhd vfHk[kafMr dh xbZA
/kkjk 4¼1½ rFkk 17 ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk esa Hkwfe dk o.kZu] gekjh jk; esa] vf/kd Li"V gSA u dsoy [kljk la[;kda ugha fn, x, gS] izfer **ifj{ks=** Hkh minf‘kZr ugha gSA **ifj{ks=** ds lkeus ek= eanlkSj dk mYys[k ftldk foLrkj 25 oxZ fd-eh- ds {ks= gSA rFkk fofHké uxjikfydk gYdksa esa foHkkftr gSa] iw.kZr% vi;kZIr o.kZu gS vkSj izR;FkhZ vFkok vU; fdlh dks Hkh ml o.kZu ls ;g Kkr ugha gks ldrk Fkk fd D;k 2298 gsDVs;j Hkwfe esa] tks fd vtZu ds fy, visf{kr Fkh mldh Hkwfe lfEefyr Fkh vFkok ughaA **ifj{ks=** dk izfefr ls izdV u fd;k tkuk] vf/klwpuk dks fof/kekU; cukrk gS rFkk uksfVl ds izdk‘ku dk ,d vFkZghu vkSipkfjdrk cuk nsrk gSA
gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd **yksd iz;kstu** Hkh tks fd vf/klwpuk dh vuqlwph esa **vkokfld** ds :i esa mfYyf[kr gS furkar vLi"V gS rFkk vtZu ds iz;kstu ds laca/k esa dksbZ cks/k O;Dr ugha djrk tks fd vf/klwpuk dks fof/k dh –f"V esa vfof/kekU; cuk nsrk gSA fdl izdkj dk vkokfld LFkku izLrkfor Fkk vFkok fdlds fy, Fkk bl laca/k esa dksbZ min‘kZu ;k vU; dksbZ C;kSjs ugah fn, gSA jkT; fdlh ukxfjd dh Hkwfe fdlh vU; ds fy, fuokl cukus ds fy, vftZr ughaa dj ldrk] tc rd fd og **yksdfgr** eas u gks vFkok **turk** ;k mlds fdlh le:i oxZ dh izlqfo/kk ds fy, u gksA 1970 ¼3½ ,l lh vkj 278 rFkk 1973 ¼1½ ,l lh vkj 973 voyafcrA 1989 ts ,y ts 501 vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 14À
Dr. A.S. Anand, J. -- 1. On 12th of April, 1984, the Collector Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, issued a Notification, purporting to be under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) to the effect that land detailed in the schedule attached thereto was required for a public purpose. The Notification further discloses that the State Government being of the opinion that the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 17 of the Act were applicable in respect of the land required to be acquired, it dispensed with the enquiry under section 5 (A) of the Act.
The schedule to the notification provided as follows:
SCHEDULE Particulars orLand Approximate area in Hectares
Distt. Tehsil City/ AApproximate authorised Detail of
Village Officer public
area in under Purpose
section 4 (2)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Mandsaur Mandsaur Mandsaur 2.298 Executive Residen-
Engineer tial
M.P.
Housing
Construction
Board
Ratlam.
2. The aforesaid notification was followed by a declaration under section 6 (1) of the Act, issued on April 16, 1984. In the schedule to that declaration, khasra numbers of the proposed land with respective areas were provided and in column (2) requiring the mention of "public purpose" for which the land is required it was stated for "Housing Scheme of Housing Board ". In column (3), it was stated that "the plan of land may be inspected in the office of the Collector".
3. The respondent, herein, filed a writ-petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the validity of the notification issued under sections 4 (1) and 17 (1) of the Act as also the declaration made under section 6 (1) of the Act on various grounds. The main thrust of the challenge was that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was vague and invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act and that recourse to the urgency provisions under section 17 (1) of the Act could not be had since the land was not "waste or arable", which is the sine qua non for exercising powers under section 17 (1) of the Act. The challenge to the notifications succeeded and the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the High Court by the judgment impugned before us by Madhya Pradesh Housing Board through this Special Leave petition.
4. Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the special leave petition arc as follows:
5. The Executive Engineer of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Construction Division on 3.9.1983 addressed a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhya Pradesh Housing Construction Board, Bhopal, stating therein that during the tour of the Chairman of the Board, he had found private land measuring 2.29 hectares situate near the bus stand in Mandsaur city, to be "absolutely suitable for the construction of buildings and shops under self financing scheme" and requested that the said land be acquired on priority basis. On receipt of this letter, the Land Acquisition Officer, addressed a communication, on 15.2.1984, to the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Housing Department, with a request to forward the matter along with his recommendation to the Collector, Ratlam for favour of "publication of a notification in the M.P. Gazette for the acquisition of the said land under sections 4 (1) and 17 of the L1nd Acquisition Act". On April 12, 1984, the Collector Mandsaur, M.P., issued the notification under section 4 (1) and 17 (1) of the Act and followed it by a declaration under section 5 of the Act on April 16, 1984.
6. Mr. D. D. Thakur, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant assailed the findings of the High Court by characterising the same as based on "hyper technicalities". Argued Mr. Thakur that since acquisition of land had been made at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent of land, the absence of providing detailed particulars of the land or the locality where it was situate, could not vitiate the notification, more so when sufficient particulars had been prov
